Mitt Romney delivered a long-awaited speech on how his religion - and his faith in general - will factor into the 2008 election. Not since JFK has a candidate's religion (not the same thing as religiousness) been a significant topic of concern and consternation. In 1960, JFK addressed a congregation of Protestant ministers about his Catholicism. On Thursday, Romney spoke at President George H. W. Bush's Presidential Library about the role (or non-role?) of his Mormonism and how his "faith will inform [his] Presidency."
Mr. Romney's speech was entitled "Faith in America." Overall it was a sermon extolling the presumed value and pervasive presence of religion in America today, all the while emphasizing that, while he is Mormon, he really is a Christian above all. And he will bring his good ol' Christian morals and values to the Presidency as the savior of these United States, delivering us from the evil that is godlessness. Or at least that's what I felt he said when I listened to the speech.
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom... Freedom and religion endure together, or perish together." The speech wouldn't be complete until he mentioned freedom. I took this quote to have underlying meaning - that, if we weren't a religious society, we would no longer be free and oh those infidels would destroy America (oh the horror!). I'm not quite sure I see the jump between losing religion and destroying "freedom" and destroying societal structure. Unless, of course, you believe that it already has been ruined by the gays and unwed couples and atheists.
As expected, there was the obligatory quoting of Kennedy about being "an American running for President." Mr. Romney also emphasized that no Church "will ever exert influence on presidential decisions." Good to know... I almost believe you. The Churches I fear are the ones that go by the names like Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Tobacco... and I'm pretty sure they are exerting influence on decisions today.
"I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient tradition of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims." And I'd like to give a shoutout to my roommate from freshman year - your interpretation of Nelly really moved me. Holla to my homeboys who dig the lyricism of El Guante - you speak deep truths. And four for Glenn Coco - you go Glenn Coco! Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were in the Girl Scouts closing circle, where we say something nice about everyone in the group.
Speaking of "the group," why does Mr. Romney (and so many others) limit himself to Abrahamic religions? Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are not the only religions out there. Would it kill you to give a shoutout to Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Native American religions, rastafarianism, pastafarianism, etc?
"It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong." [Applause.] At this point, Mr. Romney pontificated on the meaning of separation of Church and State and stresses that he "will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'" I think that, in trying to solidify his religious cred, he leaned a bit too far the other way and denounced secularism.
"We do not insist on a single strain of religion - rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith." A nice line, but what about atheists and agnostics? Do we not welcome those?
"We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny" and links this to "radical Islamists" and the "coercion of minds and the shedding of blood." Religious right rhetoric. And unfairly dramatizing Islam as a religion to be feared.
Normally I'm not one to pick apart a speech phrase by phrase. However, Mitt Romney's speech on religions was hyped as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Eh...not so much. It had little of the earth-shaking effect that JFK's did, and instead it came across as just another let's-placate-the-moral-conservative-base stump speech.
Mr. Romney's speech was entitled "Faith in America." Overall it was a sermon extolling the presumed value and pervasive presence of religion in America today, all the while emphasizing that, while he is Mormon, he really is a Christian above all. And he will bring his good ol' Christian morals and values to the Presidency as the savior of these United States, delivering us from the evil that is godlessness. Or at least that's what I felt he said when I listened to the speech.
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom... Freedom and religion endure together, or perish together." The speech wouldn't be complete until he mentioned freedom. I took this quote to have underlying meaning - that, if we weren't a religious society, we would no longer be free and oh those infidels would destroy America (oh the horror!). I'm not quite sure I see the jump between losing religion and destroying "freedom" and destroying societal structure. Unless, of course, you believe that it already has been ruined by the gays and unwed couples and atheists.
As expected, there was the obligatory quoting of Kennedy about being "an American running for President." Mr. Romney also emphasized that no Church "will ever exert influence on presidential decisions." Good to know... I almost believe you. The Churches I fear are the ones that go by the names like Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Tobacco... and I'm pretty sure they are exerting influence on decisions today.
"I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient tradition of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims." And I'd like to give a shoutout to my roommate from freshman year - your interpretation of Nelly really moved me. Holla to my homeboys who dig the lyricism of El Guante - you speak deep truths. And four for Glenn Coco - you go Glenn Coco! Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were in the Girl Scouts closing circle, where we say something nice about everyone in the group.
Speaking of "the group," why does Mr. Romney (and so many others) limit himself to Abrahamic religions? Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are not the only religions out there. Would it kill you to give a shoutout to Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Native American religions, rastafarianism, pastafarianism, etc?
"It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong." [Applause.] At this point, Mr. Romney pontificated on the meaning of separation of Church and State and stresses that he "will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'" I think that, in trying to solidify his religious cred, he leaned a bit too far the other way and denounced secularism.
"We do not insist on a single strain of religion - rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith." A nice line, but what about atheists and agnostics? Do we not welcome those?
"We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny" and links this to "radical Islamists" and the "coercion of minds and the shedding of blood." Religious right rhetoric. And unfairly dramatizing Islam as a religion to be feared.
Normally I'm not one to pick apart a speech phrase by phrase. However, Mitt Romney's speech on religions was hyped as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Eh...not so much. It had little of the earth-shaking effect that JFK's did, and instead it came across as just another let's-placate-the-moral-conservative-base stump speech.
3 Comments:
"Mitt Romney's speech on religions as hyped as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Eh...not so much. It had little of the earth-shaking effect that JFK's did, and instead it came across as just another let's-placate-the-moral-conservative-base stump speech."
I don't even think it did that (placate the moral conservative base). As a strong Christian I am taken aback by how much of a "selling out" this speech appeared to be at some points.
As a Christian, everything, and I mean everything I do comes out of my faith. That is kind of the exact definition of Christian. I'm assuming that it is the same in other religions as well. That said, it is a lie that your faith won't have any bearing on your decisions (this is of course assuming you are devoted to your faith in more than name-only).
I am very disheartened by the fact that religion (in most cases stressing love, care, compassion, kindness, self control.. etc.) is such a dividing point. Religion should not be feared, it should be explored.
A man or woman's character is built by there faith. Don't think that you can elect someone in spite of it.
"A man or woman's character is built by there faith. Don't think that you can elect someone in spite of it."
This just reeks of moral superiority. This is the same implicit assumption that Romney shows he makes throughout his speech that while all religion is good, lack of one is necessarily bad. You basically can't be a good and moral person unless your decisions are influenced by belief in a higher power. I find that offensive.
That wasn't my point. My point is that a person who has a strong faith bases their decisions accordingly, and therefore their religious beliefs will most certainty influence what they do. (i.e. Policy decisions while in office.)
What I meant by you can't elect someone in spite of their faith is that you can't say to yourself, "Well, I like him/her as a candidate as long as they leave their religious beliefs behind when they come in to work." It doesn't work like that, faith (and the moral values derived from that faith) can't be turned on and off.
I make no claim as to the moral superiority of those with strong religious beliefs as opposed to those without. I simply state that the beliefs a person has (founded in religion, societal cues, or whatever) are their beliefs and won't (and shouldn't) change from venue to venue.
Post a Comment
<< Home